Jones, Esq. v. Landry's, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-09920
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jones v. Landry’s, Judge Willis denied Landry’s and Palm Management’s request to pause discovery while their dismissal motion was pending.
The order directly affects Defendants Landry’s, Inc. and Palm Management Corp., whose request to pause discovery was denied, and Plaintiff Joy Vida Jones, Esq., whose discovery was not stayed.
What happened
In Jones, Esq. v. Landry’s, Inc., Defendants Landry’s, Inc. and Palm Management Corp. asked the court to temporarily pause discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. Plaintiff Joy Vida Jones, Esq. opposed the request.
Defendants argued that the motion to dismiss would likely eliminate all of Jones’s claims, and that pausing discovery would avoid burdensome and unnecessary work. Jones argued that Defendants had not shown why discovery was burdensome or unnecessary, and that further delay could prejudice her.
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis denied the motion. Judge Willis found that Defendants offered only general statements rather than specific facts showing good cause, and that the court had already directed the parties to continue discovery while the dismissal motion was pending.
The detailed version
- Jones, Esq. v. Landry's, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-09920
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 9, 2024
Background
Defendants Landry’s, Inc. and Palm Management Corp. moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to temporarily stay, or pause, discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for December 13, 2024. Plaintiff did not consent to the requested stay.
Arguments
Defendants argued that their motion to dismiss would likely dispose of all of Plaintiff’s claims, that a stay would prevent burdensome and potentially unnecessary discovery, and that Plaintiff would not suffer unfair prejudice.
Plaintiff argued that Defendants’ motion effectively sought reconsideration of the court’s October 29, 2024 decision without following the required procedure for reconsideration. Plaintiff also argued that the claims were more likely to survive dismissal than Defendants asserted, that further delay could prevent her from having her day in court given her age and health conditions, and that Defendants had not adequately explained why discovery would be unnecessary or burdensome if some claims survived.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 26(c) allows a court, for good cause, to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The party seeking protection must provide a particular and specific factual showing, rather than general or conclusory statements.
The court explained that discovery should not ordinarily be paused merely because a motion to dismiss has been filed. Relevant considerations include the breadth of the requested discovery, the burden of responding, possible prejudice to the opposing party, and the strength of the motion to dismiss.
The court found that Defendants made only conclusory statements that discovery would be burdensome and provided no specific explanation. The court also noted that, after the October 29, 2024 conference, it had directed the parties to continue discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending. The court further stated that Defendants had not met the strict requirements for reconsideration because they did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or previously presented factual matters, and they were attempting to relitigate an issue already decided.
Disposition
The court denied Defendants’ motion to stay discovery under Rule 26(c) and directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Entry 53. The opinion does not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.